US Supreme Court Sets Audio Arguments for Select Cases in May
Among the cases the justices said they would hear in May include the dispute over Trump's financial records, an Obamacare case and the controversy over "faithless electors."
April 13, 2020 at 10:19 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court, following steps taken by many federal and state courts in response to the coronavirus pandemic and the closure of courthouses, announced on Monday it will hear arguments by teleconference in select cases next month.
The justices will schedule six days of arguments—May 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13—with the justices and advocates participating remotely. The court also will provide a live audio feed of those arguments to the news media, according to the court's public information office.
The previously postponed cases that the justices have now selected include the battle over access to President Donald Trump's financial records by a state grand jury and two U.S. House investigating committees; a First Amendment challenge to two states' "faithless elector" laws, and the Trump administration's defense of its expanded "conscience exemption" for objectors to providing contraceptive health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
The court said it would announce later the assigned dates for the cases to be argued in May. The court picked 10 individual cases—some, such as the Trump financial records disputes and the Obamacare matter, have been consolidated—to hear in May.
The justices postponed the March and April oral arguments, which would have included 20 cases. The postponements, while rare, were not unprecedented. The justices did not hold arguments for October 1918 because of the Spanish flu epidemic. And the court shortened its argument calendars in August 1793 and August 1798 in response to yellow fever outbreaks.
The Court also tells arguing counsel that the remainder of the postponed March and April arguments will be conducted "early in the 2020 Term." https://t.co/NKcILA2Gpl
— Sean Marotta (@smmarotta) April 13, 2020
The justices faced a range of options for dealing with the postponed argument sessions and the remainder of the term. Those options included deciding pending cases solely on the briefs submitted by the parties, moving some cases into the October 2020 term or extending the current term's usual ending time past late June with potential arguments in late summer or early fall. Some state supreme court courts have embraced video technology to hear arguments during the virus crisis.
Despite the deferred arguments, the justices have gone forward with other business. The court has been holding its regularly scheduled private conferences when the justices go through newly filed petitions and other matters. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has presided over those meetings in the court's conference room while the other justices have participated remotely by teleconference. The court has been posting on its website orders containing grants and denials of review as well as decisions in already argued cases.
The court's iconic building in downtown Washington, across the street from the U.S. Capitol, remains closed to the public.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute read- With Return to Offices Still Uncertain, Big Law Shifts From When to How
- 'Rolling With the Punches': Litigators Use Creativity to Manage Their Cases Without Jury Trials on Tap
- From Canceled to 'Business as Usual,' Law Firms Go Their Own Way on Summer Associate Programs
- In a First, Indiana Will Hold 1-Day, Online Bar Exam in July
- Summer of Our Discontent: Big Law Associate Programs Get Major Overhaul
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250